[LTP] : drop test pidns03 ?

[LTP] : drop test pidns03 ?

[Sukadev Bhattiprolu]

I am not sure about the original intent of pidns03 test case but I think
the test is expected to fail :-(

The header for this test says:

	* Verify that:
	* 1. When parent, clone a process with flag CLONE_NEWPID, see the
	* process id of the parent is existing after mounting /proc

The test passes in the parent-pid from init-pid-ns and looks for that
pid in the child's mount of /proc.

But for the CLONE_NEWPID child, parent process should appear to have a
pid == 0. The pid of the parent in the initial pid namespace must NOT
be visible to the child - in fact a different process can have that pid.

I am not surprised the test fails - I am curious to know the version of
the kernel when this test reliably passed - if at all. I tried this on
2.6.29 and 2.6.34-rc5 and it fails reliably.

I dug through my history and see that this test was part of a 6-patch set,
We did have some comments on the coding style on the set, but we seem to
have missed the intent of this test :-(.

Do we have any other history of this test ? If not, I think we should either
drop the test or modify the test to verify the opposite (i.e.  verify that
the opendir() in the test fails with ENOENT).

Sukadev

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by 

Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev 
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] : drop test pidns03 ?

[Subrata Modak]

Dropped.

Regards--
Subrata

commit b47b875e00fbea4bb3398ac2f3ef4b4dd32826f0
Author: Subrata Modak <subratamodak@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon Aug 16 20:08:51 2010 +0530

On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 17:00 -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> I am not sure about the original intent of pidns03 test case but I think
> the test is expected to fail :-(
> 
> The header for this test says:
> 
> 	* Verify that:
> 	* 1. When parent, clone a process with flag CLONE_NEWPID, see the
> 	* process id of the parent is existing after mounting /proc
> 
> The test passes in the parent-pid from init-pid-ns and looks for that
> pid in the child's mount of /proc.
> 
> But for the CLONE_NEWPID child, parent process should appear to have a
> pid == 0. The pid of the parent in the initial pid namespace must NOT
> be visible to the child - in fact a different process can have that pid.
> 
> I am not surprised the test fails - I am curious to know the version of
> the kernel when this test reliably passed - if at all. I tried this on
> 2.6.29 and 2.6.34-rc5 and it fails reliably.
> 
> I dug through my history and see that this test was part of a 6-patch set,
> We did have some comments on the coding style on the set, but we seem to
> have missed the intent of this test :-(.
> 
> Do we have any other history of this test ? If not, I think we should either
> drop the test or modify the test to verify the opposite (i.e.  verify that
> the opendir() in the test fails with ENOENT).
> 
> Sukadev
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by 
> 
> Make an app they can't live without
> Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltp-list mailing list
> Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by 

Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev 
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list